Tag Archives: research critique

Research Critique 3: Glitch & The Art of Destruction

Starting off with the bucket of clean water, we played more with the idea of destructing meaning rather than the physical work itself. In today’s social context, a bucket of clean water would likely be associated with being a cleaning device – for mopping, dipping cloths in and perhaps even bathing. Within a span of less than a minute, we metaphorically challenged the idea of cleanliness through these steps:

1. Get a bucket of clean water
2. Dirty the water: Wash your hands in it
3. Restore cleanliness of the water with other cleaning devices: Tissue, soap
4. “Destroy” the water: With something obviously un-clean (Starbucks drink)
5. Repeat step 3

Here’s the catch: If we’re putting objects associated with cleaning in clean water, are we cleaning the water or dirtying it? It’s much like the saying: if you drop soap on the floor, is the soap dirty or is the floor clean?

From this, an accident is made in the meaning of ‘clean’ through this metaphorical challenge and therefore creating a glitch that is better understood by the mind than the eyes. While a glitch is defined in Glitch Studies Manifesto as “an interruption that shifts an object away from its ordinary form and discourse“, it seems as though we’ve created a glitch within a glitch: Cleaning the dirty water with cleaning devices keeps the ordinary definition of clean within the devices, while at the same time, dirtying the water with cleaning devices destroys the ordinary meaning of clean within the devices.

This project is similar to Cadillac Ranch by Ant Farm, where the noses of American Cars were buried in the ground, therefore shifting the object away from its ordinary “iconic symbol of the American Dream” to becoming “a symbol of American power and ingenuity turned upside down”. It is the same in the sense that the general understood representation of the object is challenged in both works.

I believe that the accident is embraced by the fact that the glitch had remained off the radar the entire time, given that a large reaction was only made by the audience when something ‘obviously’ un-clean was poured in. Why is it that no one had realised the destruction before that? This is where I believe glitch and destruction becomes an act of artistic expression, as mentioned by Jon Cates, “the way to not be stuck is to focus on glitch as a form of surprise and as a way of glitching people’s expectations”. What we had performed on an object with symbolic, con-formative meaning was a “procedural art of non con-formative, ambiguous reformations” (described in Manifesto), therefore glitching our audience’s expectations

Research Critique 2 – Third Space

A third space is a created ‘world’ where human connection can be made and felt without the need for any form of physical presence, where time can be bent and dilated, regardless of physical location. A third space, therefore allows for a collapse of boundaries between people who are not in the same physical space.

This is better described by Randall Packer, where a third space is “perhaps akin to the fourth dimension, a hyperspace where spatial trajectories have no boundaries, where temporal relations are amorphous, where wormholes reveal pathways that are instantaneous and geographically dispersed“. This is much like the movie Interstellar where the wormhole allowed for a bend in time, allowing for connection between Future Cooper and Present Cooper.



In my opinion, the way to intimacy is through a person’s five basic senses. With that, today, the most basic form of intimacy that can be created between people in different locations would be that of a phone call, since both parties are able to hear the voices of the the other. This is followed by a video call, since two senses are touched on – hear and sight. Of course, this was what Hole-in-Space by Kit Galloway & Sherrie Rabinowitz managed to achieve back in the 80s, where the project “suddenly severed the distance between both cities and created an outrageous pedestrian intersection”. Therefore, the ideal would be to increase the number of senses that are touched on between interaction of people in different locations, such as how Telematic Dreaming by Paul Sermon managed involve even the sense of touch – that, to me, is the closest form of intimacy.

Tying it back to micro-project 3 where Ying Hui and I created the first perspective of a “third” body in a third space by using half of ourselves, we were able to connect by literally trying to connect our two halves into one through a split screen, through non-verbal communication. Our main form of communication was then waiting for each other’s ‘cues’ of when the other should move next (e.g. she takes one step, I take the next). Therefore, by taking away our simplest form of communication (verbal) and forcing ourselves to still communicate in other forms to literally connect ourselves, we were then able to connect with each other in this third space.